Warlord - I don't get it

[Spinachcat]

I ran 4 games of 4e at the Gamex convention and every game had a Warlord for two reason (a) he's new and shiny and (b) he rocks.

The Warlord is the pointman from SpyCraft on steroids. His job is to buff the other heroes and bring some tactics to the battlefield.

Contrary to online discussions, the Warlord does NOT control anyone's PCs actions whatsoever. He offers options, like have a free shift, have some free HP, have a free attack. He does NOT take someone's character and make them move or act. Now, the actions he offers are cool and fun so as the other player, you will generally accept them because who doesn't want a free attack on the monster!

The Warlord is all about enhancing the team, not being the bully who tells the other players what to do. A bully player is not going enjoy him. It's the guy who likes to support who will love the Warlord.

The Warlock on the other hand is schitzo. He's got cool skills for non-combat and then in battle, he's this weird magical archer who launches special exception style attacks. Cool, but plays quite differently than any other D&D spellcaster.

 

[Blackeagle]

So, uh, what, you want me to shift closer to the wizard? Or more to the left?

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more,
Or close the wall up with our English dead!
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility;
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger:
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood.

 

[TheArcane]

I still don't understand, why do four guys, who explore deadly dungeons for a living, need a master tactician anyway? And a -war-lord even?
The flavor of the class is problematic, the name implies an entirely different proffession, from previews I've seen the warlords powers make posssibly the least amount of sense... Overall, I have the feeling that the class is less about providing an alternative leader, more about showing off the new tactics elements.

 

[mattdm]

Actually, I'd say that is the class, NOT for him. Since he isn't a good, group player and can cause the potential and fun of that class to disappear.

The best person for the Warlord is the person who listens to everyone else, is willing to help them in what they are trying to accomplish and works with not against the other players.

The, ahem, theoretical person I am imagining isn't actually an antisocial jerk — he (or theoretically she) is actually a great group player. He just has a hard time containing his good ideas when it's someone else's turn. The warlord gives a legitimate place for what he loves within the context of the game.

 

[mattdm]

I still don't understand, why do four guys, who explore deadly dungeons for a living, need a master tactician anyway? And a -war-lord even?
The flavor of the class is problematic, the name implies an entirely different proffession, from previews I've seen the warlords powers make posssibly the least amount of sense... Overall, I have the feeling that the class is less about providing an alternative leader, more about showing off the new tactics elements.

So, maybe if your game is all about exploring deadly dungeons, it's not the best class for your group.

 

[Uruush]

I heart the warlord.

He's the Hunter class from Mearls' Iron Heroes even more awesome-a-fied in his role.

Can't wait to play one.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

The, ahem, theoretical person I am imagining isn't actually an antisocial jerk — he (or theoretically she) is actually a great group player. He just has a hard time containing his good ideas when it's someone else's turn. The warlord gives a legitimate place for what he loves within the context of the game.

Ahh, okay the initial way you wrote it, I had the annoying kind of superior type, antisocial jerk come to mind

*Nods* Now, the person I now see your describing, definitely good for the Warlord

 

[malraux]

IContrary to online discussions, the Warlord does NOT control anyone's PCs actions whatsoever. He offers options, like have a free shift, have some free HP, have a free attack. He does NOT take someone's character and make them move or act. Now, the actions he offers are cool and fun so as the other player, you will generally accept them because who doesn't want a free attack on the monster!

Yup, the powers i'm considering now are stuff like "hey rogue, now that I moved into a flank with you, get a quick sneak attack. Oh and add my Int to damage." or "Hey charging barbarian/fighter, add my Int to your damage. Oh and push the guy around a bit too."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ahh, okay the initial way you wrote it, I had the annoying kind of superior type, antisocial jerk come to mind

*Nods* Now, the person I now see your describing, definitely good for the Warlord

Let's be honest, there is never a good class for a jerk.

I demand to play a Warlord as my first D&D 4 character. Why, oh, why, will I be the primary 4E DM for some time?

 

[zoroaster100]

As DM, I am very happy about the inclusion of the warlord. I was skeptical about the class at first. But now I am thrilled to have an option for a group of players where no one wants to play a cleric. I am finding it easier to find someone that wants to play a warlord, so the group can have adequate healing without a cleric. The way I see it, the warlord is a melee cleric without the religious trappings which some players find objectionable.